Food & Agriculture – Focus on Regulationhttps://www.hlregulation.com
Wed, 13 Dec 2017 11:42:48 +0000en-UShourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.7.8The Decision Is In, and South Africa Will Soon Tax the Sugar Content of Beverageshttps://www.hlregulation.com/2017/12/07/the-decision-is-in-and-south-africa-will-soon-tax-the-sugar-content-of-beverages/
Thu, 07 Dec 2017 22:37:03 +0000https://www.hlregulation.com/?p=10236Following the 2016 budget speech during which the proposal to tax the sugar content of beverages was first tabled, and after 18 months of vigorous debate, the South African Parliament on Tuesday adopted the taxation of sugary drinks.

]]>Following the 2016 budget speech during which the proposal to tax the sugar content of beverages was first tabled, and after 18 months of vigorous debate, the South African Parliament on Tuesday adopted the taxation of sugary drinks.

According to Treasury, the sugar tax is motivated by the high consumption of sugary beverages in South Africa, and which impact levels of obesity, and further contributes to an increase in non-communicable diseases such as diabetes and hypertension.

Various countries across the globe are taxing sugary drinks and, by way of example, the United Kingdom’s tax authority has recently published draft Regulations setting out further details in respect of the levies to be imposed on their soft drinks industry.

From 1 April 2018, the sugar content of beverages will be taxed at a rate of 2.1 cents per gram of sugar, and calculated above the threshold of 4 grams of sugar per 100ml of the beverages manufactured in, or imported into, South Africa.

In comparison, the United Kingdom draft Regulations will impose a levy on beverages that contain added sugar and at least 5 grams of sugar per 100ml of prepared drink. A levy of 18 pence per litre will apply, rising to 24 pence per litre for chargeable drinks containing 8 grams of sugar or more, per 100ml. Although the South African threshold is less than the United Kingdom’s threshold, it appears that the levy calculation method and rates are comparable.

Although many are concerned regarding the potential impact that the sugar tax may have on the South African beverage industry as a whole, and in particular employment levels within the industry, others are singing Treasury’s praises, and have made it clear that the rate of the sugar tax should be further increased in the future.

For the time being, and on average, a can of sugary soda will cost South African consumers an additional 11 percent.

]]>One step closer to new rules on organic farminghttps://www.hlregulation.com/2017/11/30/one-step-closer-to-new-rules-on-organic-farming/
Thu, 30 Nov 2017 15:46:18 +0000https://www.hlregulation.com/?p=10220After three years of negotiations, the European Union is nearing the end of a long process to simplify and harmonise the rules for organic food production and the labelling of organic products. Council Regulation (EC) 834/3007 currently defines the minimum standards for organic products that are produced, manufactured, imported into, sold or traded within the

]]>After three years of negotiations, the European Union is nearing the end of a long process to simplify and harmonise the rules for organic food production and the labelling of organic products.

Council Regulation (EC) 834/3007 currently defines the minimum standards for organic products that are produced, manufactured, imported into, sold or traded within the EU, as well as the national inspection and certification systems that ensure that these requirements are met.

However, the past decade has seen a 125% growth in the value of the organic food market, with the amount of land used for organic farming growing at around 400,000 hectares per year. The European Commission has now recognised that the current rules need to be updated to support the long term development of organic production in the EU.

One of the key aims of the new regulations will be to ensure that the EU organic logo offers consumers the same guarantee of quality across Europe, including in respect of products imported from outside the EU.

The new rules will:

Create an EU-wide set of rules for all organic producers and products. Any necessary exceptions will be limited in time, regularly assessed and applied to all producers to ensure fair treatment.

Apply equally to non-EU farmers who export their goods to the EU, phasing out the 60+ different “equivalence” standards currently applying to imported organic foods and levelling the playing field between EU and non-EU producers.

Enable farmers to apply for group certification for their products, thereby reducing costs and making it easier to join the organic scheme.

Apply to new products like salt, cork and essential oils and enable further products to be added in response to consumer demand.

Allow national authorities the discretion to reduce controls and inspections on farms from every year to every two years for producers with no record of non-compliance after three consecutive controls.

Reinforce the rules on precautionary measures to avoid accidental contamination by pesticides, giving consumers confidence that no pesticides have been used in the production of organic foods.

Following the European Parliament’s first reading, the proposed regulations will come into force on 1 January 2021, repealing Council Regulation (EC) 834/3007.

]]>UK ‘Sugar Tax’ – Draft Regulations Publishedhttps://www.hlregulation.com/2017/11/16/uk-sugar-tax-draft-regulations-published/
Thu, 16 Nov 2017 12:08:02 +0000https://www.hlregulation.com/?p=10196The UK tax authority HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) has published draft Regulations setting out further details on the new UK ‘Soft Drinks Industry Levy’, which will apply from 6 April 2018. The new levy applies to all soft drinks packaged in or imported to the UK that contain added sugar and at least 5

]]>The UK tax authority HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) has published draft Regulations setting out further details on the new UK ‘Soft Drinks Industry Levy’, which will apply from 6 April 2018.

The new levy applies to all soft drinks packaged in or imported to the UK that contain added sugar and at least 5 grams of sugar in total (both naturally occurring and added sugar) per 100ml of prepared drink (“chargeable drinks”). A levy of 18p per litre will apply, rising to 24p per litre for chargeable drinks containing 8 grams or more of sugar per 100ml.

Companies that produce, package or receive imported chargeable drinks will need to register with HMRC and keep detailed records of products that are subject to the levy. There is an exemption for companies that produce fewer than 1 million litres of chargeable soft drinks in the relevant tax year.

The draft Regulations provide further details as to how the levy will be applied in practice, including:

definitions of fruit juice, vegetable juice and milk for the purposes of determining the source of added sugar (as the levy does not apply if the source of added sugar is solely from these ingredients);

how HMRC will calculate the sugar content of drinks intended to be diluted (e.g. cordials) in the absence of a serving dilution ratio on the packaging or where it believes that the suggested ratio has been set specifically to avoid the tax;

details of the registration process, the procedure for submitting returns to HMRC and the payment of charges; and

the procedure for claiming tax credits in relation to chargeable drinks that are exported from the UK or lost or destroyed.

The draft Regulations are available here and the consultation closes on 8 December 2017.

]]>UK Food Standards Agency reviewing Feed Law Code and Guidancehttps://www.hlregulation.com/2017/11/13/uk-food-standards-agency-reviewing-feed-law-code-and-guidance/
Mon, 13 Nov 2017 13:54:32 +0000https://www.hlregulation.com/?p=10184The UK Food Standards Agency (FSA) is consulting on its proposals to amend the Feed Law Code of Practice and Practice Guidance. The Code and Guidance have to be taken into account by local authorities when enforcing feed law requirements in England (there are separate documents for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland). The FSA is

]]>The UK Food Standards Agency (FSA) is consulting on its proposals to amend the Feed Law Code of Practice and Practice Guidance. The Code and Guidance have to be taken into account by local authorities when enforcing feed law requirements in England (there are separate documents for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland).

The FSA is developing an innovative “whole system strategy” to feed law control and enforcement. The proposed amendments to the Code and Guidance aim to improve consistency of enforcement and reduce the regulatory burden for feed businesses, while maintaining a high level of public and animal protection. In particular, the proposals seek to:

Encourage consistency in the interpretation and implementation by local authorities of official feed controls by simplifying the Code and Guidance;

Introduce a new National Targeted Monitoring Strategy with greater flexibility as to the type and frequency of interventions for low risk farms; and

Reduce the regulatory burden on compliant businesses, including replacing the existing two tier approach to enforcement with a single official control every 10 years.

Consistency of enforcement, a simplified regime and reduced regulatory burden are likely to be welcomed by feed industry stakeholders who are invited to respond to the consultation before the deadline on 15 December 2017. A full summary of responses will be published within three months of this date.

]]>Draft EU List of Authorised Novel Foods Publishedhttps://www.hlregulation.com/2017/10/16/draft-eu-list-of-authorised-novel-foods-published/
Mon, 16 Oct 2017 14:04:19 +0000http://www.hlregulation.com/?p=10136The European Commission has published a draft implementing Regulation setting out the proposed official EU list of authorised novel foods. A ‘novel food’ is a food or ingredient that has not been consumed to a significant degree in the EU prior to 15 May 1997. These include products traditionally eaten outside the EU prior to

]]>The European Commission has published a draft implementing Regulation setting out the proposed official EU list of authorised novel foods.

A ‘novel food’ is a food or ingredient that has not been consumed to a significant degree in the EU prior to 15 May 1997. These include products traditionally eaten outside the EU prior to this date, such as chia seeds, argan oil and noni fruit juice, as well as foods produced using innovative processes, such as UV-treated mushrooms.

Currently, food manufacturers looking to use a novel food or ingredient in their products have to obtain prior authorisation from the first country in the EU in which the food/ingredient will be marketed. That authorisation applies across the EU but is personal to the applicant, so other companies wishing to use the same food/ingredient have to apply for a separate authorisation.

A new centralised authorisation procedure will replace the current system from 1 January 2018, under the new Novel Foods Regulation (EU) 2015/2283, making it easier and quicker for businesses to use innovative novel foods and ingredients in the EU. Applications will be submitted to the Commission and assessed by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) as to whether the food or ingredient presents a risk to public health, is not nutritionally disadvantageous compared to any food or ingredient it could be used to replace, and is not misleading to consumers. If authorised, the food or ingredient will be added to the official list and businesses can then use that novel food or ingredient in the EU without having to apply for their own authorisation. There will also be a simplified approval route for traditional foods from outside the EU.

The draft implementing Regulation includes all novel foods and ingredients that have previously been authorised for use by Member State competent authorities, their conditions for use, specifications, and any additional specific labelling or other requirements.

The Commission has until 1 January 2018, when the new Novel Foods Regulation comes into effect, to adopt the finalised implementing Regulation. Any application for authorisation under the current system that has not received final approval by the relevant Member State before the implementing Regulation is formally adopted will automatically be treated as an application under the new centralised procedure. Where a risk assessment has already been completed by a Member State and no objections have been raised by other Member States or the Commission, the EFSA will not carry out a second assessment.

The full text of the draft implementing Regulation is available here and the consultation closes on 2 November 2017.

]]>Majority in favour of improving fairness in EU food supply chainhttps://www.hlregulation.com/2017/10/16/majority-in-favour-of-improving-fairness-in-eu-food-supply-chain/
Mon, 16 Oct 2017 10:10:40 +0000http://www.hlregulation.com/?p=10134Initial responses to the European Commission’s public consultation on how to make the EU food supply chain fairer suggest that, bar retailers, the majority of significant stakeholders (including Member States, farmer groups, agricultural organisations and NGOs) are in favour of action at EU level to increase fairness and balance in the food supply chain. The

]]>Initial responses to the European Commission’s public consultation on how to make the EU food supply chain fairer suggest that, bar retailers, the majority of significant stakeholders (including Member States, farmer groups, agricultural organisations and NGOs) are in favour of action at EU level to increase fairness and balance in the food supply chain.

The EU-wide consultation has so far received record numbers of contributions. It was prompted by concerns that differences in bargaining power between farmers and SMEs and their economically stronger commercial partners has resulted in unfairness and unequal distribution of value across the chain.

The consultation follows the Agricultural Markets Task Force, set up by Commissioner Hogan last January, and seeks input on the necessity and expediency of measures to address the current imbalance. Views are also sought on ways to improve market transparency across the food supply chain and the potential use of value sharing agreements, already used in sectors such as sugar, to ensure that bonuses and losses resulting from evolutions in market prices are shared.

The on-going consultation ends on 17 November 2017. The full consultation document is available here.

]]>ECJ sides with farmers on genetically modified cropshttps://www.hlregulation.com/2017/09/15/ecj-sides-with-farmers-on-genetically-modified-crops-2/
Fri, 15 Sep 2017 13:01:13 +0000http://www.hlregulation.com/?p=10013The European Court of Justice has held that Member States may not adopt emergency measures prohibiting genetically modified food and feed (GMOs) unless there is clear evidence that a particular GMO presents a serious risk to health or the environment in accordance with Article 34 of the GMO Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003. Ruling in favour

]]>The European Court of Justice has held that Member States may not adopt emergency measures prohibiting genetically modified food and feed (GMOs) unless there is clear evidence that a particular GMO presents a serious risk to health or the environment in accordance with Article 34 of the GMO Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.

Ruling in favour of farmers of genetically modified maize, the ECJ held that the precautionary principle, allowing provisional risk management measures where the possibility of harmful effects has been identified (but not conclusively established), should not be interpreted as relaxing the so-called “safeguarding clause” in Article 34. In this case, referred to the ECJ by an Italian District Court, new evidence of potential harm from studies carried out by Italian research institutes was not sufficient to support the requested emergency measures and invalidate the previous authorisation of genetically modified maize by the European Food Safety Authority.

While the majority of EU consumers remain averse to GM crops, this ruling shows that Member States will require conclusive scientific evidence in order to rely on the safeguarding clause which has previously been used to prevent the growth of GMOs.

You can read the full judgment of Fidenato and Others (C-111/16) here.

]]>Are We Due for a Makeover?https://www.hlregulation.com/2017/06/06/are-we-due-for-a-makeover/
Tue, 06 Jun 2017 16:15:13 +0000http://www.hlregulation.com/?p=9608Many have questioned what affect a proposed legislative facelift, to the cosmetic industry, will have on manufacturers, retailers and, of course, on consumers.

]]>Many have questioned what affect a proposed legislative facelift, to the cosmetic industry, will have on manufacturers, retailers and, of course, on consumers.

According to the Department of Trade and Industry, the total size of the South African cosmetic industry, including personal care products, as far back as 2010, was estimated to be an impressive R25.3 billion, and it is said to contribute approximately 1% to the country’s gross domestic product.

Given the size of this industry, and most consumers’ desire to look and feel good, many consumers have been duped into purchasing products that, not only aren’t able to make good on the claims made, i.e. not “clinically proven”, but also aren’t safe for their intended use.

Misleading labelling and advertising of cosmetic products has left many consumers not only out of pocket, but also feeling disillusioned.

For this reason, the South African Department of Health (“DOH“), in collaboration with the Cosmetic Toiletry and Fragrance Association (“CTFA“), sought to revise the framework in terms of which the cosmetic industry is currently regulated in South Africa. This is mainly to curb irresponsible labelling and advertising, and also to equip consumers with the necessary information in order to make informed decisions when purchasing cosmetic products.

According to draft Regulations relating to the Labelling, Advertising and Composition of Cosmetics (“Draft Cosmetics Regulations”), published by the DOH on 19 August 2016, interested parties were invited to submit comments thereon by 19 November 2016.

no labelling or advertising of a cosmetic may make use of text, names, trademarks, pictures or other signs, which imply that a particular product has any characteristics that it does not have;

the use of claims, whether relating to the nature, effects or quality of a product, that cannot be scientifically substantiated, will be prohibited;

it is proposed that it be an offence for any person selling a cosmetic to imply that medical practitioners recommend the use thereof or where the impression that a cosmetic has any health-giving properties, unless it has been scientifically substantiated.

What is key to note is the requirement to keep a product information file in respect of each cosmetic marketed. Furthermore, manufacturers of cosmetics will be required to comply with good manufacturing practices.

The Draft Cosmetics Regulations also provide a list of prohibited substances and a list of permissible colouring agents and preservatives, which is safe for use in cosmetics.

Taking into consideration not only the additional administrative requirements imposed on manufacturers, and the like, but also the possible expenses to be incurred in revising packaging and labelling of cosmetic products, one can only speculate what economic impact this may have on the South African cosmetic industry as a whole.

Despite the purported urgency in issuing the Draft Cosmetics Regulations, more than 6 months have passed since the closing date for submission of comments in respect thereof, without any update from the DOH regarding the proposed date of implementation.

Although some may see this as an opportunity to bide their time, the relevant role players in the supply chain may well wish to consider acquainting themselves with the provisions of the Draft Cosmetics Regulations in anticipation of its inevitable implementation, in order to be able to continue marketing any products affected by the proposed legislation, and to avoid contravening the regulations, once implemented.

]]>CJEU upholds principle of free movement of goods for food supplementshttps://www.hlregulation.com/2017/05/22/cjeu-upholds-principle-of-free-movement-of-goods-for-food-supplements/
Mon, 22 May 2017 09:27:54 +0000http://www.hlregulation.com/?p=9566The Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU“) has issued a ruling on the interpretation of Directive 2002/46/EC on food supplements, finding that a French law prohibiting the sale of food supplements from other EU Member States containing vitamins and minerals above French national limits is contrary to EU law. The CJEU held that

]]>The Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU“) has issued a ruling on the interpretation of Directive 2002/46/EC on food supplements, finding that a French law prohibiting the sale of food supplements from other EU Member States containing vitamins and minerals above French national limits is contrary to EU law.

The CJEU held that while individual Member States can set their own maximum vitamin and mineral levels for food supplements, the absence of a procedure for evaluating and authorising food supplements lawfully marketed in other Member States that exceed those national limits means that the French law contravenes the EU principles of free movement of goods and mutual recognition.

The CJEU also confirmed that where an individual Member States sets its own national maximum vitamin and mineral levels for food supplements, those levels must be set on a case-by-case basis following a comprehensive risk assessment based on generally accepted scientific data, including international and not only national data.

The ruling is significant for food supplement companies in confirming that even where national limits are allowed to be set, these must be based on robust scientific evidence and cannot be used to automatically prevent products sold legally elsewhere in the EU from being sold in that national market. In the longer term, the ruling also highlights the need for harmonised EU maximum vitamin and mineral levels to be developed.